|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 02 2018 14:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 14:03 Doodsmack wrote:On March 02 2018 13:28 mozoku wrote:On March 02 2018 13:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:
That's also the kind of wording that's a lawyer's wet dream, which means it's likely not nearly that clear cut. In the same vein that you wouldn't see "don't hire black people" written anywhere explicitly.
Your link is also incorrect, and WSJ is paywalled as well? So I can't even read the article. I quoted the entire article already, and quoted the relevant passage twice. The paywall is irrelevant because you already have the article. The relevant passage isn't from a lawyer, it's from the article. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed my original post, but otherwise this is a prominent example of the reading comprehension that xDaunt correctly whines about regularly. We have at least 4 independent sources alleging diversity queues, publicly known policies from Google that align with the practice, and it comes from a company that has had complaints about its overbearing political culture in the past. Furthermore, I fail to see how there's any reasonable basis on which to doubt the Journal's source credibility for this article. Investors seem worried as well. I agree that we should let the courts hear it out before a legal decision is made, but considering Plansix is infamous for saying "this thread isn't a court", the median poster here believes 95% of single source Trump administration leaks from antagonistic media outlets, and is perfectly comfortable with Twitter mob justice on #MeToo, forgive me for having a laugh here when these same people are demanding ~5x the evidence standard all of a sudden when such unofficial evidence points against their favored political groups. If I'm reading this right, the worst case scenario is Google is employing affirmative action in its hiring. The overrepresented groups that already have an abundance of job opportunities are being disfavored, and they are hiring minorities and women instead. The problem with the argument that Google's action here is morally bad is that the groups being "discriminated" against are already advantaged and overrepresented. Legally, I'm pretty sure people can't be outright excluded from the entire hiring process based on race or gender. It's one thing to favour minority groups, another thing to completely deny a group.
The dudes is going to need a smoking gun email or memo to prove it. Or show that they didn’t hire any white or Asian employees for 2 years.
|
On March 02 2018 14:25 Sermokala wrote:
Man 10k is coming up I wonder if the threads going to get closed as the landfill is filled up for the forum.
Only if post #200000 is glorious enough to top off the landfill.
The successor will have to be the "Donald Trump Negathread" because we need somewhere for all this to go.
|
|
|
Trumps opinion on gun control before he met with the NRA tonight was that more should be done. Paul Ryan would be advised to get trumps ear on this issue and not let anyone else get his ear afterwards.
|
On March 02 2018 14:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 14:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 02 2018 14:03 Doodsmack wrote:On March 02 2018 13:28 mozoku wrote:On March 02 2018 13:19 WolfintheSheep wrote:
That's also the kind of wording that's a lawyer's wet dream, which means it's likely not nearly that clear cut. In the same vein that you wouldn't see "don't hire black people" written anywhere explicitly.
Your link is also incorrect, and WSJ is paywalled as well? So I can't even read the article. I quoted the entire article already, and quoted the relevant passage twice. The paywall is irrelevant because you already have the article. The relevant passage isn't from a lawyer, it's from the article. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed my original post, but otherwise this is a prominent example of the reading comprehension that xDaunt correctly whines about regularly. We have at least 4 independent sources alleging diversity queues, publicly known policies from Google that align with the practice, and it comes from a company that has had complaints about its overbearing political culture in the past. Furthermore, I fail to see how there's any reasonable basis on which to doubt the Journal's source credibility for this article. Investors seem worried as well. I agree that we should let the courts hear it out before a legal decision is made, but considering Plansix is infamous for saying "this thread isn't a court", the median poster here believes 95% of single source Trump administration leaks from antagonistic media outlets, and is perfectly comfortable with Twitter mob justice on #MeToo, forgive me for having a laugh here when these same people are demanding ~5x the evidence standard all of a sudden when such unofficial evidence points against their favored political groups. If I'm reading this right, the worst case scenario is Google is employing affirmative action in its hiring. The overrepresented groups that already have an abundance of job opportunities are being disfavored, and they are hiring minorities and women instead. The problem with the argument that Google's action here is morally bad is that the groups being "discriminated" against are already advantaged and overrepresented. Legally, I'm pretty sure people can't be outright excluded from the entire hiring process based on race or gender. It's one thing to favour minority groups, another thing to completely deny a group. The dudes is going to need a smoking gun email or memo to prove it. Or show that they didn’t hire any white or Asian employees for 2 years.
Yeah, know that. Just saying that's what alleged goes far beyond affirmative action and would be illegal.
|
Maybe I missed it but did we address that google has been tracking/publishing this data for a while?
Diversity among new hires at the company was relatively flat as well.
In 2016 women were 21% of the hires in tech roles while Black and Hispanic or Latinx candidates made up 3% and 4% of all new hires, respectively.
Source
Not sure if the argument is their data is total bunk (you'd think if they were faking it they'd make it more favorable), the rest are all nepotism hires and so the sub 30% of hires that actually have to apply were all hogged by 'quota friendly' hires and he doesn't think that's fair, or what?
Sure seems like it's just some privileged tool complaining there's a shred of fairness in the hiring process. Maybe I'm missing something though?
|
Honest question: if Black and Hispanic candidates make up 3% and 4% of all applicants and/or the most qualified candidates (no idea if this is the case), would you consider Google to be discriminatory?
Being in a technical role with extremely little diversity (at a large tech company obviously), and knowing the sorts of people who make hiring decisions, I can assure you that the people making hiring decisions are very liberal politically. They're the type that I constantly fight with in this thread (I keep my mouth shut at work for career reasons), and my guess is that, if anything, they would skew towards diversity even if there were no instructions from above to.
Having hired for these roles though, I also know that something like 2/3+ of applicants are literally Chinese. I've seen zero Hispanic resumes (guessing from the name), and I've never seen a black interview candidate (their names tend to be harder to guess from a resume imo). Having been in a stats graduate program, I recall there was zero blacks and zero Hispanics in my 100-200+ person program (from what I remember).
Granted, I agree this is an awful societal problem and I fully support efforts to improve the pipelines that lead minority candidates (as well as as other disadvantaged groups including poor/rural whites) to apply for and win job offers to these positions.
But is that Google's fault? Is a shortage of qualified applicants (as evidenced by their low participation rates in math/physics/stats/cs undergraduate and graduate programs) a problem that Google can fairly solve (i.e. without resorting to illegal things like they're accused of doing)?
I'm genuinely curious on your thoughts here because I'm a little bit more sympathetic to AA in fields where there's something of a significant supply of qualified historically disadvantaged candidates--i.e. jobs for undergraduate business majors or something. I understand it sucks that those jobs tend to be less prestigious and pay less, but the extremity of the shortage of qualified non-Asian minority applicants in top-tier tech roles makes it an almost qualitatively different problem I think.
|
On March 02 2018 16:43 mozoku wrote:
Honest question: if Black and Hispanic candidates make up 3% and 4% of all applicants and/or the most qualified candidates (no idea if this is the case), would you consider Google to be discriminatory?
Being in a technical role with extremely little diversity (at a large tech company obviously), and knowing the sorts of people who make hiring decisions, I can assure you that the people making hiring decisions are very liberal politically. They're the type that I constantly fight with in this thread (I keep my mouth shut at work for career reasons), and my guess is that, if anything, they would skew towards diversity even if there were no instructions from above to.
Having hired for these roles though, I also know that something like 2/3+ of applicants are literally Chinese. I've seen zero Hispanic resumes (guessing from the name), and I've never seen a black interview candidate (their names tend to be harder to guess from a resume imo). Having been in a stats graduate program, I recall there was zero blacks and zero Hispanics in my 100-200+ person program (from what I remember).
Granted, I agree this is an awful societal problem and I fully support efforts to improve the pipelines that lead minority candidates (as well as as other disadvantaged groups including poor/rural whites) to apply for and win job offers to these positions.
But is that Google's fault? Is a shortage of qualified applicants (as evidenced by their low participation rates in math/physics/stats/cs undergraduate and graduate programs) a problem that Google can fairly solve (i.e. without resorting to illegal things like they're accused of doing)?
I'm genuinely curious on your thoughts here because I'm a little bit more sympathetic to AA in fields where there's something of a significant supply of qualified historically disadvantaged candidates--i.e. jobs for undergraduate business majors or something. I understand it sucks that those jobs tend to be less prestigious and pay less, but the extremity of the shortage of qualified non-Asian minority applicants in top-tier tech roles makes it an almost qualitatively different problem I think.
Honest answer: I don't think that's true, and even if it was, yes.
Google isn't some random innocent bystander, they are one of the 20 wealthiest corporations in the country. As such they wield great influence and resources. If getting more diverse candidates in their pipeline was something they wanted for more than PR and self-congratulatory liberalness they'd have it or at least be a lot closer to it.
As to the idea of it being discrimination, would you agree that an all white company excluding black people isn't the same as an all white/Asian company temporarily focusing on not hiring white/Asian guys, in every material way other than the recognition of skin color?
As you mention, the underlying social issues are not remotely comparable. Google clearly isn't facing a problem of not hiring enough white/Asian guys, there isn't a nationwide issue of white and Asian men being excluded from the workplace, they aren't being redlined, non-white/Asians don't run/own everything etc... So if by chance there was some sort of hiring discrimination in the worst way articulated, it's still not remotely comparable or within the spirit of those laws (regardless of the literal interpretation)
I'm also not convinced that most application processes are that great at predicting the quality of work/workers they are getting. I'd bet there are lots of candidates who on paper are clearly inferior, but given the opportunity, would outshine some of the best 'qualified' candidates.
So if an overwhelmingly white/Asian company realizes that they are lacking something important as a result of their lack of diversity, I don't find it problematic to prioritize candidates that aren't white/Asian men at the expense of other traditionally valued metrics. Diversity brings more than skin color to an office, it brings different perspectives you simply can't get in a homogeneous place. That has both a functional and monetary value that is reasonable to consider. This isn't to be read as an excuse for white people to say "we work better when we're all racists so you have to respect that". It's to say that diversifying a workplace has benefits that homogenizing one doesn't and because race is a factor in both doesn't make them the same.
|
I have to say i agree with both of you, or rather I reserve my judgment becayse I don’t know how much hard skill you need as a google engeneer and how much your skill level matters.
I am in a profession (symphonic orchestra player) that used to be reserved to men not long ago, and has very successfully opened up to women, which make over 50% of the professionals in my field.
Now, I also see every day the disaster that positive discrimination can be when applied at the wrong place, and in our case, it’s about conductors. Everyone is obsessed with women conducting, and there is a huge political pressure to invite as big a ratio of women to conduct as possible. Thing is that conducting is an incredibly hard job with an extremely limited pool of people doing it right. And they have a gigantic impact on the result. The other thing is that there is no top thier female conductor i can name in the world, and only a handful of second thier.
So symphony orchestra are flooded with really bad female conductors who only manage to convince everyone that women can’t do that job, when the problem is obviously cultural and on an education level.
Then again, it has little to do with google and i know nothing of the workforce in AI but to see regularly how infuriating having a completely incompetent person at a job because of their sex or whatever, i can only listen to the folks denouncing the whole process.
Now it’s also a very, very liberal field, which maybe makes it less relevant than professions where unbalances could be actually die to unfairness and prejudice in the recruitment process..
|
I am in a profession (symphonic orchestra player) that used to be reserved to men not long ago, and has very successfully opened up to women, which make over 50% of the professionals in my field.
Doesn't it still heavily skew male in the top orchestras? Or has that changed in the last 20 years?
|
On March 02 2018 19:35 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +I am in a profession (symphonic orchestra player) that used to be reserved to men not long ago, and has very successfully opened up to women, which make over 50% of the professionals in my field. Doesn't it still heavily skew male in the top orchestras? Or has that changed in the last 20 years?
It has changed.
I am in a european capital symphony, our CEO, konsertmaster, 2 solo violas, solo cellist, solo horn are women. Our last recruit is a black lesbian girl and i haven’t seen anyone having the slightest problem with her in any possible way. But the conventional wisdom still is that there is an anti female bias as far as conductors go so we are pressured into getting more of them, while the problem is simply that they are not good enough.
I am all for correcting the fact they are not enough women at the top level of conducting, but not for putting incompetent people on the podium thinking it will solve anything. It won’t. We need to make young women conductors better, not push the (too often bad) ones we have to position they don’t deserve and can’t handle.
Again, that works because the milieu is (at least where i am, it wouldn’t be the same business in, say, Vienna) completely unbiaised gender wise to start with.
To summarize, when talking about positive discrimination, one has to make a difference between correcting a bias (then i am all for it) and pushing under represented people above more competent folks to artificially create diversity. That’s extremely dangerous imo. I guess sometimes it’s hard to differenciate which is which.
All of that with keeping in mind that we want diversity, and that means an extra effort in education targetting people doing not so well in certain fields. And, certainly, the question is drastically different if we talk about schools and universities admissions.
I don’t know if women are simply victim of collegialism and male chauvinism in IT (i know it’s the case in science), in which case, I’m all for google having a policy there, or if it’s just that they are less of them because our culture and education system makes girls less prone to get interested and good at it, in which case it’s the culture and education we need to work on, not google workforce. I suspect it’s a bit of both, and it might very well be that positive discrimination might be a good idea to break a vicious circle of prejudice and reality feeding each other. I sincerely don’t know.
|
Maybe its also just that Women aren't as interested in many of these things on average? Doesn't mean the ones that want to do it shouldn't, just that not as many pursue that path.
Plenty of jobs that were clasically "mens Domains" got swarmed with women once the job market opened, there probably is still discrimination around, but i highly doubt that its the main reason hindering women from entering certain fields/jobs.
The issue with Black/Latin/Whatever is diffrent form that but i'd like to imagine the root of the problem is more with the school system than companies hiring policies (in general, i'm sure there are some shit places).
|
The issue with “many women are not interested” is that argument benefit the men already in the field and is impossible to disprove. I have worked under several male attorneys who have said “women don’t like going to trial because they dislike direct conflict.” Which is code for women don’t want to be “real” attorneys.
|
On March 02 2018 21:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 19:35 Orome wrote:I am in a profession (symphonic orchestra player) that used to be reserved to men not long ago, and has very successfully opened up to women, which make over 50% of the professionals in my field. Doesn't it still heavily skew male in the top orchestras? Or has that changed in the last 20 years? It has changed. I am in a european capital symphony, our CEO, konsertmaster, 2 solo violas, solo cellist, solo horn are women. Our last recruit is a black lesbian girl and i haven’t seen anyone having the slightest problem with her in any possible way. But the conventional wisdom still is that there is an anti female bias as far as conductors go so we are pressured into getting more of them, while the problem is simply that they are not good enough. I am all for correcting the fact they are not enough women at the top level of conducting, but not for putting incompetent people on the podium thinking it will solve anything. It won’t. We need to make young women conductors better, not push the (too often bad) ones we have to position they don’t deserve and can’t handle. Again, that works because the milieu is (at least where i am, it wouldn’t be the same business in, say, Vienna) completely unbiaised gender wise to start with. To summarize, when talking about positive discrimination, one has to make a difference between correcting a bias (then i am all for it) and pushing under represented people above more competent folks to artificially create diversity. That’s extremely dangerous imo. I guess sometimes it’s hard to differenciate which is which. All of that with keeping in mind that we want diversity, and that means an extra effort in education targetting people doing not so well in certain fields. And, certainly, the question is drastically different if we talk about schools and universities admissions. I don’t know if women are simply victim of collegialism and male chauvinism in IT (i know it’s the case in science), in which case, I’m all for google having a policy there, or if it’s just that they are less of them because our culture and education system makes girls less prone to get interested and good at it, in which case it’s the culture and education we need to work on, not google workforce. I suspect it’s a bit of both, and it might very well be that positive discrimination might be a good idea to break a vicious circle of prejudice and reality feeding each other. I sincerely don’t know.
We know a huge portion of the US workforce is less qualified white men displacing better workers? That's the entire history of this country.
Seeking out diverse candidates rather than picking from the pile of white/Asian candidates is a necessary task for companies like google if not also value adding and a moral imperative.
I wholly reject a place like google playing a passive/victim role in this. Like their employees just fall out of the sky. A handful of industries got together not too far back and completely shaped our educational system to create the type of workers they needed. Google could be doing that but instead they'd rather just take advantage of countries that did and leave US workers to fend for themselves.
Because the not so secret secret is that corporations have 0 loyalty to the people of this country. If any company in the fortune 500 found out they could shut down all US operations and open up in China with more profit and confidence their company wouldn't be appropriated, they'd be gone before their workers cleaned out their desks.
|
@Plansix: Most former law students i know don't want to be "real" attorneys for that very reason, no matter the gender  .
@GH: Do i read that right? You are basically arguing for more corporate influence over your collegues/universities?
|
It's innately biological that women lean more towards "caring" fields, and desperately want children (which convieniently coincides with not being able to handle 70h workweeks; also read desperately as 90-95% of women)
Look at Norway. Even in my field, biochem and biomedical you see 50-80% women, where in other STEM fields it's much lower. I don't know about medicine, but I've a rising suspicion that women are overrepresented nowaways or are becoming so.
Don't let innate biological skewing stand in the way of "equalizing the fields" that's all, because it makes no sense if they innately don't want to go there.
|
On March 02 2018 21:46 Velr wrote:@Plansix: Most former law students i know don't want to be "real" attorneys for that very reason, no matter the gender . @GH: Do i read that right? You are basically arguing for more corporate influence over your collegues/universities?
No, I'm arguing if they wanted it they got it. They chose not to do that, and certainly not out of an altruistic desire not to interfere.
On March 02 2018 21:48 Uldridge wrote:
It's innately biological that women lean more towards "caring" fields, and desperately want children (which convieniently coincides with not being able to handle 70h workweeks; also read desperately as 90-95% of women)
Look at Norway. Even in my field, biochem and biomedical you see 50-80% women, where in other STEM fields it's much lower. I don't know about medicine, but I've a rising suspicion that women are overrepresented nowaways or are becoming so.
Don't let innate biological skewing stand in the way of "equalizing the fields" that's all, because it makes no sense if they innately don't want to go there.
You'd be amazed at how well things like this work as self-fulfilling prophecies and causing immense psychological stress in women who don't feel that way at all but are reminded daily when they try to stray away from it.
|
On March 02 2018 12:07 mozoku wrote:
Did nobody read the article or does nobody care that there was literally a racial and gender-based hiring freeze corroborated by multiple sources from the WSJ at one of America's most prominent employers?
Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but nobody (other than Danglars) has condemned this yet as far as I can tell.
Would you any of you agree with this quote? Perhaps you've heard of it?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
i'm waiting for clearer confirmation. I don't regard what you posted as being sufficient proof on the topic.
and the memory of the prior incident and how you acted in regards to it and what it ultimately turned out to be makes me skeptical. once a rebuttal argument comes out, things often turn out to be very different.
also, huge companies have expensive law firms, not so prone to making sloppy mistakes; and when companies do bad things, it's usually a result of the profit motive, not ideology, and I don't see how they'd profit from this.
|
On March 02 2018 21:46 Velr wrote:@Plansix: Most former law students i know don't want to be "real" attorneys for that very reason, no matter the gender . @GH: Do i read that right? You are basically arguing for more corporate influence over your collegues/universities?
Big firms have two tracks.
Partner track: 80 hour work weeks.
Other: normal work week. Often called the “mommy track”.
Law is super sexist.
|
On March 02 2018 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 21:46 Velr wrote:@Plansix: Most former law students i know don't want to be "real" attorneys for that very reason, no matter the gender . @GH: Do i read that right? You are basically arguing for more corporate influence over your collegues/universities? No, I'm arguing if they wanted it they got it. They chose not to do that, and certainly not out of an altruistic desire not to interfere. Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 21:48 Uldridge wrote:
It's innately biological that women lean more towards "caring" fields, and desperately want children (which convieniently coincides with not being able to handle 70h workweeks; also read desperately as 90-95% of women)
Look at Norway. Even in my field, biochem and biomedical you see 50-80% women, where in other STEM fields it's much lower. I don't know about medicine, but I've a rising suspicion that women are overrepresented nowaways or are becoming so.
Don't let innate biological skewing stand in the way of "equalizing the fields" that's all, because it makes no sense if they innately don't want to go there. You'd be amazed at how well things like this work as self-fulfilling prophecies and causing immense psychological stress in women who don't feel that way at all but are reminded daily when they try to stray away from it.
So why is the situation in the "equalest" countries arguably worse when it comes to job diversity? ist it more likely that the patriarchy is leading women into jobs they like by subtile manipulation or that most women don't want to work in stem fields?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
